click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
be uncomfortable. in reality, the obama administration has said it will consider proposals from states that are aimed at finding better ways of getting welfare recent beans into jobs. factcheck.org and the "washington post" fact checker have said the same, that the claim is false. [cheers and applause] >> what do you say? >> ladies and gentlemen, -- >> allow me to respond. >> the truth tour begins tonight. >> i should've set that up at the beginning of that was herman cain maintaining the same point that romney campaign has, that the obama administration is getting rid of the work requirement. and what i thought that showed was the importance of fact checkers in this campaign. and i really think, and brendan and glenn and i were just talking about how things are different this time compared to 2008. there's more fact checking than ever, and the fact-checking hasn't taken much greater prominence this time. the candidates are being asked about it. i got a call from cnn last night that they had asked mitt romney in an interview about how the fact checkers have debunked that ad. and about
of achievement on the obama administration and ends up accepting argument at time it was red called. the theory that the penalty people pay if they choose not to follow the mandate is a tax, and falls in the government's taxes power. this argument, of course, was in great -- with the fact that obama administration and congress had disclaimed there was anything about the law that was a tax. >> when you went in to the argument, and thought about the case, you mentioned you were conscious about where you thought your stronger and weaker points were. how vulnerability did you think you were on that. >> can imagine almost anything. but that was not something that was keeping me up at night. and you just, you know, as a lawyer you got to be practical about this. and, you know, you look at, by the way, by the time we got to the supreme court we had a lot of models for opinions that, you know, upheld the law and a lot of models for opinions that struck the law down. and the overwheeling them was, you know, even the judges that july held the law didn't think much of the taxes argument, anne, you know, h
in the security effort. we founded the obama administration the strength of the renewed cooperation to face the common problems under the principles of shared response of the. but there is no doubt that much more must be done. particularly when it comes to dismantling the financial operation of criminal organizations in the u.s. and reducing the american demand. we should get to the root of the problem which is the increasing demand for the legal growth in the u.s.. as long as the market continues to growing money will keep flowing to the pockets of the criminals. and of course the best way will be to reduce the demand in the u.s.. but frankly speaking that is not possible. alternative solutions must be considered for the massive profits of the criminal organizations, and that includes the market alternatives that prevent drug trafficking and were causing so much violence. there is another problem that has become vital to the security of mexico and many other nations. how did the uncontrolled weapons to the criminal organizations. with limited access to key factor in the strength of the cri
there are a lot of folks that believe gosh, we need more rigorous immigration enforcement. that's why the obama administration embraced the. it's about how all these things represent and what are you obligate to say when you're pinned down. do you believe in enforcing these laws, or not? the thing is when you say, the whole idea of the dream act is that well, these are the good kids. let's attack the interest of the good kids. advocates will say, i think there are, it doesn't mean you're a bad kid if you're in community college or it may be got in trouble if you're a teenager and your criminal record, it doesn't make you a bad person and i think there's something very disingenuous about the debate. that's of course advocates want to structure the debate in a certain way. i don't know how much of this is rooted in any kind of beliefs prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i do think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageously which is their job. >> thank you. >> just a couple more questions and then we'll have to cut it off. so maybe back there. and
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4